So many people I really respect are in favour of this that I feel ashamed to say I am still a ‘don’t know’. But in the area where I live if I had had to post preferences in the last election I would have been stuck. I voted Labour, whose candidate did not quite come bottom of the poll – that place went to the BNP. Obviously there is no way I would have voted for that party. The other candidates were an Independent who declared himself to the right of David Cameron and a Conservative who I knew to be slightly right of Attila the Hun. The Liberal I suspected to be really blue masquerading in a yellow rosette and subsequent events proved me right. There was not really a ‘least worst’ in this situation. Other elections have fielded UKIP candidates and other Independents of various blue hues. Nearby constituencies have had English Defence League candidates. Advice please!

I find the idea that a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum was in fact a pledge to campaign for a yes vote in said referendum a little bit boggling.

Surely if the Labour party knew it was united on the subject the commitment would’ve simply been to introduce it? They said they wanted a referendum as they knew the party was divided.

MPs deciding to campaign for what they agree with during the referendum campaign is hardly to break their commitment, they committed to a referendum, not a yes. I, obviously, favour reform, but many don’t, and many Labour MPs think (erroneously in my mind) that FPTP is the best system for Labour.

Hi MatGB,

Actually if you look at the manifesto it is hard to see how it didn’t commit Labour MPs to supporting AV if a Labour Government was elected. You can find it here http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf and it states:

“The next stage of national renewal:

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.”

This could be argued could leave MPs with wriggle room. But the subsequent text, I suggest, does not:

“To begin the task of building a new politics, we will let the British people decide on whether to make Parliament more democratic and accountable in referenda
on reform of the House of Commons and House of Lords, to be held on the same day, by October 2011.”

That seems to suggest that the referenda (actually referendums) themselves would make Parliament more “democratic and accountable”. Therefore, this must be the held view of the Labour Party in its 2010 manifesto.

Furthermore, it states:

“To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons.”

That also seems to me to suggest that the Labour Party thinks that AV is a better system than the current one.

So, I think that the argument which suggests the manifesto did not bind Labour MPs as to the outcome of the AV referendum is a bit dubious. The only argument I guess they have is to say that it isn’t their government introducing the referendum and therefore they can have a free vote. Sure, but there isn’t an iota of principle in this and rather undermines us when we are throwing the kitchen sink at Lib Dems for breaking their own manifesto promises.

Labour uses AV to elect their leader. If these no-to-AV MPs really think FPTP is a better system than AV, why have none of them(*) campaigned for Labour to elect its leader by FPTP? I suspect it’s because they secretly know that FPTP is a bad at choosing who the electorate most want, and hypocritically support it for precisely that reason.

Ditto for Tory MPs supporting FPTP.

*: as far as I know. I’m willing to be corrected on this.

Is that the same Matt Qvortup who told the Tories that AV would help them?

http://s.coop/electoralreform

Phil – AV is a good system if you want to elect a single individual and provide a ‘consensus bonus’. It’s not a particularly good system if you’re electing an assembly and making inter-party choices rather than intra-party ones.

So are we supposed to be voting ‘yes’ because AV will improve our democratic system, as is the point behind it, lest we forget, or because the Labour Party hierarchy believe that it will deliver us more seats?  

And what if they’re wrong? We won’t actually know if it will or not until we have an election and if it doesn’t yield success for us, and has the opposite effect,  it’ll be too late.

Then there’s the nuclear, nightmare scenario. Working class voters in Northern cities have, apparently, been deserting labour to vote BNP in recent elections. Just ask Margaret Hodge or Sir Andrew Green. 

With that sort of voting logic many people as likely to to mark Labour ’1′ and BNP ’2′ on their ballot papers in some areas – the very last thing we need. But then again, depends whether you suppose such an outcome under AV is an improvement to the democratic system?

On balance, ‘No’ it is then…

Peter, the evidence from polling is that the opposite is true. The BNP pick up votes in ‘traditional Labour areas’ more than anywhere else, but the evidence is that they’re not Labour voters switching, they’re anti-Labour voters voting for the only party that’s organising in what’re normally fairly safe, fairly neglected, areas.

The sort of voters who used to be working class Tories, or were involved in Conservative Working Mens Clubs, etc.

Regardless, the BNP were predcited by many, including Hodge and Green, to be making a breakthroughin 2010. The reality was they started tearing themselves apart. AV (and indeed STV) are the systems that are least likely to do well for the BNP, and while I live in an area with BNP presence and councillors, I don’t view them as being a current threat, electorally. They remain a threat to those their supporters target for violence &c, but that’s not what you’re talking about.

I’m supporting AV as I favour preferential voting, I’d rather we had STV on LA authority boundaries, but that was never on the table. AV is a net good.

And if it is revealed that Labour is a 2nd preference to bNP supporters, or vice versa, then that’s something that can be dealt with by effective campaigning. Instead of pandered to by certain elements within the party (yes, I do live near Oldham…)

Then there’s the nuclear, nightmare scenario. Working class voters in Northern cities have, apparently, been deserting labour to vote BNP in recent elections

That’s because the electoral system makes it easy for them to ignore voters – which makes them angry and vote BNP.

You want to stop the BNP? Make it harder for MPs to have safe seats so they don’t have to campaign. That is the strongest argument against them, not rigging the system in your favour.

Sunny Hundal @ 9;

A very telling point – ” . . . make it harder for M.P’s to have safe seats so they don’t have to campaign etc.” This sounds a convincing and desirable idea except for the fact that professional politicians and their local organisations are past masters at ossifying systems to meet their own purposes .i.e. political survival and prolonged stewardship. Money of course helps no end. But what really puzzles me is when in future any sort of PR result is announced as a ‘hung parliament’ – as you all seem to want – where is the actual democracy in the horse trading for power that goes on behind closed doors to determine which permutation of opportunists forms a government? Aren’t you actually making it harder for democracy? Answers in words of one syllable please.

Mulligrubs – The Alternative Vote is not a proportional system so it is not designed to result in more Hung Parliaments.

And in case you didn’t notice, our present system hasn’t given us any special immunity to them; in just 1 election in 100 years has a government with a working majority been replaced by a government with a working majority from another party.

Edward Heath’s Conservatives did it in 1970, but no other party leader has managed it because it’s nigh on impossible for voters to ‘kick the rascals out.’

If anybody is interested in more arguments for reform check out the YES! To Fairer Votes website: http://www.yestofairervotes.org

“where is the actual democracy in the horse trading for power that goes on behind closed doors”

This already happens as the 2 main parties are broad churches.

“Aren’t you actually making it harder for democracy? Answers in words of one syllable please.”

No.

@ 11:

“Mulligrubs – The Alternative Vote is not a proportional system so it is not designed to result in more Hung Parliaments.”

It may not be *designed* to result in Hung Parliaments, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t *result* in them.

@ 12:

“This already happens as the 2 main parties are broad churches.”

Yes, but the crucial difference is that it happens before the election, meaning that voters can still have their say on the final manifesto, rather than after the election, in which case there is no way of telling how many people support the finished product, or would have voted for it had it been published before the election.

“It is a shame that some Labour MPs… have chosen short term tactical gain above the long term interests of the voters and the Labour Party.”

Somewhat ironic that you bring this up, when all the “advantages” you list below are really advantages for the Labour Party, rather than for the country.

#3: You know very well it was a fudge designed to keep everyone on board. But we could hardly say that in the manifesto – we had to give some reason for supporting a referendum on AV and that’s about as benign a reason as we could find.

I find the behaviour of these MPs disgraceful. The tacit agreement as I understood it is that Labour people in favour of AV can campaign for it, and Labour people who don’t want AV can campaign against it, but that we won’t attack each other and divide our Party. Needlessly creating division will not help you win Labour members to your cause, especially those for whom electoral reform is not a big issue one way or the other but for whom party unity is. I’d suggest most of the working class base of the party fall into that category.

#4: I wish the Labour leadership election had been conducted under FPTP, or at least SV. I was forced to pref Diane Abbott higher than Ed Miliband, even though I didn’t want Diane Abbott to win (I thought she’d be an awful leader and ran a terrible campaign), just to send a message that my eventual preference for Ed Miliband was coming from the left. But I don’t think elections should be about sending a message through the system, I think they should be about, you know, electing people. Under FPTP I would’ve been forced to choose between my first-choice candidate, Ed Balls, or the candidate of the two who had mobilised the most support. Under SV I would’ve voted for my first-choice candidate, then for the realistic choice. Under AV my preferences were distorted in order to send a message through the political system.

#2 and others: One thing that really pisses me off about supporters of electoral reform is the constant assertion that everyone who is a Labour or Tory member and supports FPTP does so because they selfishly want to preserve a system which (supposedly) benefits them. That’s massively disingenous. There are principled reasons for supporting FPTP – you might think we’re wrong but that doesn’t mean we are any less principled than you. #2 isn’t the worst offender but the last sentence set me off.

So are we supposed to be voting ‘yes’ because AV will improve our democratic system, as is the point behind it, lest we forget, or because the Labour Party hierarchy believe that it will deliver us more seats?

And what if they’re wrong? We won’t actually know if it will or not until we have an election and if it doesn’t yield success for us, and has the opposite effect, it’ll be too late.

Either you vote for the system which you think will result in the most democratic outcome (however you choose to define that) and let the chips fall where they may, or you have accept that you’re not actually in favour of democracy.

“Yes, but the crucial difference is that it happens before the election, meaning that voters can still have their say on the final manifesto,”

Most people don’t read manifestos, and a vote for a party can be down to many different reasons. Does somebody who votes tactically against the party they dislike the most really consent to the manifesto of the party they voted tactically for?

In any case manifesto’s are frequently broken, and say nothing of the big decisions yet to be made. Also there is equally no way of telling how much influence each wing of a party is going to have after an election. At least coalition forming is generally more open and predictable once the multi-party norm is established (you know which way small parties are likely to go, and which areas they will influence).

“when all the “advantages” you list below are really advantages for the Labour Party, rather than for the country.”

I suspect that was because it was written as a “why the labour party should support AV” article. Although you are correct, supporters of AV should focus on why it best for the electorate, not any particular party.

#1

Realised no-one has answered your question yet.

I don’t support AV, I prefer the existing First-Past-The-Post system for parliamentary elections (although I would prefer local elections [at a unitary level] to be elected by AV and regional assemblies [replacing county councils which should be abolished imo] to be elected by STV).

That said, the answer to your question is simple – just because you have several preferences doesn’t mean you have to use them all. You can choose to use only one of your preferences if you wish. In fact, if you really prefer your first choice it is marginally to their advantage to only vote for them – in the extremely unlikely event that everyone votes evenly for all the candidates but the supporters of one candidate don’t preference any other candidate (due to better understanding of how the system works), that candidate will win under AV.

Sunny, MatGB, Dunc,

I have a feeling that I know how this works out in the end. And AV and any other system of electoral reform is not the answer, it’s window dressing.

For it is the entire political and Parliamentary system where the problem lies. Frankly, its outdated, isn’t working and because it isn’t working people have lost faith in it and aren’t voting. 

This has been the complaint coming from the growing numbers of people who rarely vote – that Government and politicians simply don’t listen to them or address their needs. 

We’ve heard it often enough and, in the case of the Labour party, there is an acceptance that we have become disconnected from many of our core supporters.  

But whether you support AV or not is largely irrelevant given that it is being used cynically by the political parties merely on the basis of whether it will get them more seats or not. Don’t any of you see how further damaging this stance is to voters perception of the entire democratic system we’re trying to get the population to engage in? 

The other thing is that try as you might to convince yourselves that a ‘yes’ vote is a good thing for labour the bare fact is you simply don’t know. No one does. And my BNP analogy still holds firm as a result.

AV is A typically British evolutionary response to a problem and system that in certainty requires radical surgery.

If you or anyone else believes that being able to vote for more than one candidate in an election will bring back the masses who have abandoned their right to vote I believe you are mistaken on a fundamental level. Fools gold.   

tim f/18: if you really prefer your first choice it is marginally to their advantage to only vote for them

How?

The only situation in which the votes “A” and “ABCDE” (assuming A to be the most preferred candidate of those voters) differ in effect – under AV – is when A has already been eliminated from the election. At that point it makes no difference to A’s chances of election: it’s zero either way.

In the tie-break situation you describe, (A-E all equal on first preferences) then one of two things can happen:
– random determination eliminates A. Second preferences of A are irrelevant to A’s chances of election.
– random determination eliminates one of B-E. Second preferences of A are still irrelevant (A’s votes remain with first preference for now as A is still in). Which of the remaining four is ahead after redistribution depends on the second preferences from the eliminated candidate, not on the second preferences (or lack thereof) of A’s voters.

(If I’m misunderstanding the situation you describe, could you post a set of votes that has the property you suggest, where changing a set of votes from A to “A then something else” loses A the election, since I can’t think of one)

@19: I think you may have misunderstood me. I’m not currently advocating for either a “Yes” or a “No” vote on this particular issue. I was just pointing out that if you’re choosing an electoral system on the basis of whether you think it harms or benefits your preferred party, you’re not really in favour of democracy. You’re only in favour of an appearance of democracy that gives your desired outcome.

Now, I have to admit that I have some pretty serious doubts about democracy – both as a general concept and as currently operated in the UK – but I haven’t managed to come up with anything better. And I’m also of the opinion that the current Labour party is a significant part of the problem and probably can’t be fixed…

For it is the entire political and Parliamentary system where the problem lies.

Couldn’t agree more, but I’m absolutely buggered if I have the least clue as to what to do about it.

#20

If where votes are equal you eliminate a candidate randomly then you’re right. But surely they wouldn’t do that, surely they would look to see which candidate had the most second preferences instead? Otherwise you could randomly eliminate a candidate with the first preferences of 20% of the electorate (ie equal to everyone else) and the second preferences of 80% of the electorate, which would clearly be ridiculous. But if you do look at 2nd preferences in that (again, incredibly unlikely instance) then denying every other candidate a second preference puts your candidate at any advantage.

@6 oldpolitics: Phil – AV is a good system if you want to elect a single individual

Like an individuasl MP for a particular constituency, for example?

It’s not a particularly good system if you’re electing an assembly

But we don’t elect the whole assembly (the HoC) as one big election, we have individual separate elections in each constituency, where your vote only affects that one constituency, and not the make-up of the overall body. Both systems on offer — FPTP and AV — are the same in this respect so it’s an invalid argument when choosing between them.

(Personally I’d prefer as system such as AV+ or STV+ whereby some MPs are elected as top-up members to ensure proportionality, but that’s another issue.)

and making inter-party choices rather than intra-party ones.

In both AV and FPTP, you vote for candidate not parties. Parties are irrelevant to how the system counts the votes and determines who is elected.

Anyway, getting back to my original question, is there a single one Tory or Labour supporter of No2AV who has ever campaigned for their party to use FPTP to choose its leader?

#23 I am a Labour member who prefers FPTP for leadership elections to AV. I know others who think the same way. In fact, I already addressed your question at #15.

22/tim f: If where votes are equal you eliminate a candidate randomly then you’re right. But surely they wouldn’t do that, surely they would look to see which candidate had the most second preferences instead?

Tie-breaking in AV is generally done (and the version on offer in the referendum does it this way) by the following method:
– candidate with the highest total on the first round wins the tie.
– if equal, and there’s been a second round, candidate with the highest second round total wins the tie.
– etc for as many rounds as possible.
– if the candidates have had equal totals at all previous rounds, or it is the first round, decide randomly.

If you know of a set of AV rules that does tie-breaking by examining later preferences, I’d be interested to read it, since there are some interesting questions about which preferences should be counted.

Otherwise you could randomly eliminate a candidate with the first preferences of 20% of the electorate (ie equal to everyone else) and the second preferences of 80% of the electorate, which would clearly be ridiculous

You could get exactly the same situation with a five-way tie in FPTP, of course. (Except that the second preferences would be hidden under FPTP, so you wouldn’t be able to tell that you’d done that)

If you want a system that deals well with that particular case, then Condorcet is probably the best. Actually, I think Condorcet is just the best system in general for single-place elections, unless you have very particular requirements, and would be ideal for a leadership election.

“At least coalition forming is generally more open and predictable once the multi-party norm is established (you know which way small parties are likely to go, and which areas they will influence).”

Really? I’d say that manifesto-writing is more open and predictable, given that they’re published before the election, so you actually know what it is you’re voting for. Whereas in a coalition situation, you never really know what will be in the coalition document.

If the party that wins keeps to its manifesto, which is rarely the case. There are several policies promised in the ’97 and ’01 Labour manifestos that I actively wanted and voted for, but they were never implemented, for eample.

However, parties are able to assrt what their priority (red line) issues are, and what they will negotiate for/against most strongly–the Lib Dem manifesto for 2010 did this fairly effectively, for example, setting out 4 key policy areas that they’d insist on in whole or part, and those 4 policies are, broadly, being implemented by the coalition.

Plus, there are elements of Govt policy that were in the Tory manifesto and the coalition agreement that they can now be held to–their commitment to LGBT equality, especially over asylum issues, being a fairly obvious one.

Essentially, I don’t trust any one political party to keep to its promises, but I do trust a coalition agreement to be stuck to, broadly. I would rather negotiations to be more open, but a Cabinet that represents the majority view of Parliament, and thus the majority view of the country, is able to react to events in a more inclusive manner. It won’t always get it right, but it’s a lot more honest than the idea that pre election manifestos are always kept to.

@ 1 Elizanne

“So many people I really respect are in favour of this that I feel ashamed to say I am still a ‘don’t know’. But in the area where I live if I had had to post preferences in the last election I would have been stuck [...] Advice please!

I don’t know if this has been answered already, but if not: you wouldn’t have to rank all candidates in order under AV. If you only wanted to list your first preference (i.e. Labour in your case), that would be fine.

The point of preference voting is that it allows you to vote for the party you actually want to win without having to sacrifice the option to vote tactically. So someone might put Green down as their favourite party, but second-preference the Lib Dem candidate if he/she seems to be the only person who can realistically beat the local Tory. A likely outcome of this sort of voting behaviour would be the Lib Dem getting in by a narrow margin, but a surge in first-preference votes for the Green candidate… and over the next couple of elections that support might grow enough for the Greens to win the seat.

@15 tim f: I wish the Labour leadership election had been conducted under FPTP, or at least SV. I was forced to pref Diane Abbott higher than Ed Miliband, even though I didn’t want Diane Abbott to win (I thought she’d be an awful leader and ran a terrible campaign), just to send a message that my eventual preference for Ed Miliband was coming from the left.

You weren’t forced to do anything, you chose to. If I was voting in an AV election, I wouldn’t give someone a high preference if I thought they’d be “awful”.

I note that tactical voting of this sort is actually more common in FPTP elections, where many vote for the least bad of the two options that stand a chance of winning.

Under SV I would’ve voted for my first-choice candidate, then for the realistic choice.

You know, you could have done exactly the same thing under AV. AV gives you the choice — what’s so bad about that?

One thing that really pisses me off about supporters of electoral reform is the constant assertion that everyone who is a Labour or Tory member and supports FPTP does so because they selfishly want to preserve a system which (supposedly) benefits them. That’s massively disingenous. There are principled reasons for supporting FPTP – you might think we’re wrong but that doesn’t mean we are any less principled than you.

If I genuinely believed that FPTP was a better system than AV (or other preference voting systems such as multiple rounds), and i was a member of a political party, then I would campaign for FPTP to be used in internal party elections to elect my party’s leader. I would do this because I would believe it would tend to elect the best leader.

But very few No2AV supporters have done this — I know of no Tory or Labour MP who has, for example — which is why I believe some of them are being less than honest in their reasons for supporting FPTP.

A likely outcome of this sort of voting behaviour would be the Lib Dem getting in by a narrow margin, but a surge in first-preference votes for the Green candidate… and over the next couple of elections that support might grow enough for the Greens to win the seat.

Exactly.

Given the propensity of tactical voting, we, none of us, have any real idea of the true preferences of voters or the true strengths of various parties. While AV, to me, doesn’t go far enough, it does allow us, over time, to actually see the true strengths of the parties.

I’ve always thought the Greens would do a lot better if the electoral system allowed them to. I also hope this’ll force them to have a policy set that isn’t batshit insane, but that’s a debate for many different threads.

@ 30 MatGB

“I’ve always thought the Greens would do a lot better if the electoral system allowed them to. I also hope this’ll force them to have a policy set that isn’t batshit insane, but that’s a debate for many different threads.”

I suspect that under either AV or PR, fringe parties would eventually find themselves having to choose whether to broaden their appeal or stick to their roots. The former decision, which I suspect the Greens would go with, would almost by definition see their policy become saner (or at least more centrist; you can argue that there are issues on which the sane are in the minority). The latter, which I suspect the BNP would go with, would see the party’s vote share stabilise after the inevitable early boost all small parties would expect to enjoy once FPTP was replaced.

@26 Evil baby-killing Tory conspiracy: I’d say that manifesto-writing is more open and predictable, given that they’re published before the election, so you actually know what it is you’re voting for.

What’s the point of reading manifestos if after the election they can renege on their promises?

(Note this is not an argument for or against coalitions, because they renege on their promises in single-party governments too.)

If someone breaks their promises in business, there are laws to deal with it — such as fraud or breach of contract. Why is it considered OK for politicians to be dishonest bastards? There should be some comeback against treacherous MPs, for example they could be docked a month’s salary, or face a by-election.

@ 32

“If someone breaks their promises in business, there are laws to deal with it — such as fraud or breach of contract. Why is it considered OK for politicians to be dishonest bastards? There should be some comeback against treacherous MPs, for example they could be docked a month’s salary, or face a by-election.”

The problem is, the only clear way to litigate for that would be to make it illegal for MPs to deviate from their manifesto at all, which would tie their hands terribly.

Dramatic example: Britain could be invaded by a hostile power and find itself unable to fund its army and defend itself because the government had been elected on a pledge to cut military spending.

@18. tim f

Thank you for answering my question, and your maths stack up in the way I too had computated. Something I had left out of my original question was the fact that in a situation like mine [and obviously this would apply in an an 'opposite' situation where all the candidates bar one were leftward leaning - it could happen...] my first/only choice would be very unlikely to get any preferential votes from voters who would vote only for the ‘opposition’. Thus to my mind negating one of the arguments for AV that it would give all candidates a fair chance?

Elizannie, I assume from what you’ve said you live in what would be classed as a Tory/Lib Dem marginal?

I grew up in such a seat, and in them it’s a natural affect of the voting system to force many (but not all) supporters of other parties to choose one of the ‘big two’, a forced choice that many are unhappy with. This gives a distorted view of actual party support in those seats.

For example, my old home seat (Torbay) has a ‘natural) Labour support level of between 15 and 20%. In 2005, Labour got around 15%, but in 2010, the Lib Dem candidate (very much on the ‘left’ of the party) managed to ‘squeeze’ many Labour supporters to vote for him, so the Labour vote collapsed down to about 6%.

Under FPTP, this is inevitable, it’s frequently written up as a strength of the system, it forces choices between valid candidates. Duverger’s Law, the best written analysis of this affect, was written by a fan of the system as he recommended it for adoption in France.

I, personally, see it as a weakness, as I don’t like a system that forces voters to be dishonest, nor do I like the “only X can beat Y here” bar charts that all the parties these days adopt (you’ll get them from the Lib Dems, I got them locally from Labour (I now live in Yorkshire), etc).

If you had AV, those 10% or so of voters in Torbay who prefer Labour but instead vote Lib Dem to keep the Tory out don’t need to make that forced choice. This means that the true support level of Labour doesn’t need to be hidden.

It’s even possible that, over time, Labour could come to beat the Lib Dems into third place in such a seat (or the Greens could grow).

FPTP effectively gives two parties a monopoly on competition in most seats. AV breaks that monopoly, allowing other parties to measure their true strength, and possibly even grow. Not as strongly as my preferred voting system, STV, but in a much more open way than the forced dishonesty of FPTP.

Of course, like I said, some people don’t see the forced choice as being forced dishonesty and actually view it as a genuine strength of the system. For those, like Tim, who genuinely like FPTP while still understanding it, it’s an honest position.

Many many FPTP supporters, especially within Tory ranks, simply don’t understand these effects. I sometimes need reminding that because many Tories support FPTP, and many Tories are stupid, it doesn’t mean that all FPTP supporters are stupid (sorry Tim).

@28. Chaise Guevara

Thank you too for your comments on my question. However:

‘The point of preference voting is that it allows you to vote for the party you actually want to win without having to sacrifice the option to vote tactically.’

This year was the first time ever that I very nearly voted tactically [LibDem] to keep the Tory out of my constituency. However by eve of poll I realised that the numbers were not going to work so voted with my heart instead of my head! I was so glad that I had done this once the Liberals let down so many by their Coalition with the Conservatives that I can’t help wondering now if AV does pass into legislation whether or not voters will be worried about trying to vote tactically again?

‘A likely outcome of this sort of voting behaviour would be the Lib Dem getting in by a narrow margin, but a surge in first-preference votes for the Green candidate… and over the next couple of elections that support might grow enough for the Greens to win the seat.’

Whilst many of us would be willing to go for a long term plan like this, would the electorate as a whole be as patient? I would like to think so….

@30 MatGB: Given the propensity of tactical voting, we, none of us, have any real idea of the true preferences of voters or the true strengths of various parties. While AV, to me, doesn’t go far enough, it does allow us, over time, to actually see the true strengths of the parties.

I agree. Many scenarios have been suggested as to who might do better under AV, but I think the main outcome over the long term would be to change the nature of the political system altogether, making it a lot more fluid.

would the electorate as a whole be as patient? I would like to think so

The evidence says yes.

Essentially, whenever there’s a significant change in voting systems, over a ten year (ish) period, voter behaviour changes, susbstantially. For example, look at the European elections here in the UK, where the Greens and UKIP did sort of OK in the first List System elections, but have grown, substantially, in subsequent elections (with some signifcant evidence that a lot of Green voters for the EU switch back to Lib Dem or Labour under FPTP).

In Italy, the changes to the voting system brought in by Berlusconi have reduced, substantially, the number of parties in PArliament ( I think it went from 200 to 4, but that’s from memory). In Israel, when they changed the %age threshold, a lot of minor parties merged to form Meretz, etc.

(and yes, I can keep going on this for a long time).

Specifically, when Labour introduced FPTP for all seats in 1947 for the 1950 GE, it forced a realignment and the National Liberal rump was forced to merge with the Conservative and Unionist party, they had previously competed in multi member seats in a weird way.

So, yes, if we get a change, then voters will, slowly, change the way they vote. That’s inevitable. I prefer the way this’ll affect things, others dislike it. Some even fear it.

@33: The problem is, the only clear way to litigate for that would be to make it illegal for MPs to deviate from their manifesto at all, which would tie their hands terribly. Dramatic example: Britain could be invaded by a hostile power and find itself unable to fund its army and defend itself because the government had been elected on a pledge to cut military spending.

When circumstances have clearly changed, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the government changing policy accordingly. And I think it would be entirely feasible for any legislation to takje accond of this — after all there are already plenty of laws on the statute books that apply a “reasonable person” test.

But, to give a topical example, have circumstances changed between last May when Nick Clegg pledged to reduce tuition fees, and now when he’s trebled them? I say no.

@ 36 Elizannie

“I can’t help wondering now if AV does pass into legislation whether or not voters will be worried about trying to vote tactically again?”

I’m not sure that this is a problem for tactical voting per se – recent events will make many mistrustful of the Lib Dems, but if I were supporting the Greens I’d still put Labour down as my second preference if it meant I might keep the local Tory out. If you’re thinking “the Lib Dems’ behaviour proves that I can’t trust anyone”, surely you just wouldn’t vote at all, under AV, FPTP or any other system.

Worst case scenario is that people don’t vote tactically but do vote for their preferred candidate, which might well be better than the other way around.

“Whilst many of us would be willing to go for a long term plan like this, would the electorate as a whole be as patient? I would like to think so….”

Well, in what way would they express their impatience? Let’s say AV means that UKIP votes in one constituency jump from 2% under FPTP to 20%. I can’t really see the local UKIP supporters taking that as evidence that it’s no longer worth voting UKIP.

Under AV, it could take one, or three, or ten elections for a small party with large support to get control of a constituency. Under FPTP, it would never get control at all – would that not try people’s patience more?

21. Dunc

We are pretty much in agreement then. I know what you mean about being unable to come up with another, more successful form of democracy but to be fair on ourselves we’ve never really sat down and thought long and hard about that one or indeed asked people what they want from democracy in 2010, the process of democracy, their elected representatives and parliament.

@ 39 Phil Hunt

“When circumstances have clearly changed, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the government changing policy accordingly. And I think it would be entirely feasible for any legislation to takje accond of this — after all there are already plenty of laws on the statute books that apply a “reasonable person” test.”

I find the idea that an MP who changes his mind can be fired, jailed or otherwise punished just because the high court or some judge decides that circumstances have not “changed enough” to be deeply unsettling. In almost any setting, one person would say that circumstances have changed enough to justify a party breaking their pledges while another person would argue against – and most of the time the division will be down to whether or not each person supports the proposal on the table.

“But, to give a topical example, have circumstances changed between last May when Nick Clegg pledged to reduce tuition fees, and now when he’s trebled them? I say no.”

Others would say yes – that’s the problem. However, the Liberal Democrats actually signed specific pledges saying they would not vote for increases in fees regardless of the situation. It would be possible to make that legally binding (you could even introduce a Legally Binding Pledge Form).

@ 41

“I know what you mean about being unable to come up with another, more successful form of democracy but to be fair on ourselves we’ve never really sat down and thought long and hard about that one or indeed asked people what they want from democracy in 2010, the process of democracy, their elected representatives and parliament.”

I think that’s being rather unfair to ourselves, actually. Loads of people have tried to come up with improvements to democracy, it’s just we rarely agree – hence arguments over FPTP/AV/PR, boundary changes, whether certain laws should have to be mandated by referendum etc etc.

@35. MatGBElizannie
“I assume from what you’ve said you live in what would be classed as a Tory/Lib Dem marginal?”

I am in a very odd seat because in the past 13 years it has gone against the national voting trend on two occasions due to ‘local conditions’. So in a way those occasions could be said to be democracy at work – to a very limited extent. Other than on those two occasions it has been a safe constituency for Conservative so other than Conservative voters have felt that their votes are ‘wasted’ – as any ‘opposition’ voter in a safe constituency feels.

But as you say, tactical voting can also make one feel that they are voting ‘dishonestly’ and certainly after the debacle of the last General Election when so many who voted Liberal Democat avowedly to ‘keep the Conservatives out’ and now feel let down, will hesitate to do this again.

@40. Chaise Guevara
“Under AV, it could take one, or three, or ten elections for a small party with large support to get control of a constituency. Under FPTP, it would never get control at all – would that not try people’s patience more?”

Emm, point taken. Thus AV might be a way to engage more voters? I notice that in all this talk about changing the voting system there does not seem to be any willingness to make voting – or drawing a ballot form – compulsory? Just thought I would throw that in…..

Chaise Guevarra @ 40.
” . . . Under FPTP, it would never get control at all – would that not try people’s patience more?”

Here in South Norfolk we have had such a long succession of Tory MP’s – it is almost a monarchic hereditary set-up.This has gone on for so many years – that even the timid-option Lib Dems campaign in GE’s on the fact that they are the only party that can come second ( or in their words “have a chance of beating” ) the Tories – which is what they always fail to do. So far from losing patience with this Tory monopoly monotony the electorate hereabouts operate on the lack of principle which states- if you can’t beat them – join them or bury your head in the sands of indifference. And so we get Tory MP’s and Councils ad nauseam and Toryism dictating the perma-agenda. Only very infrequently do the Lib Dems take over the District Council but even then it is without any noticeable sign of any political agenda change having taken place – Box and occasionally Cox – so to speak. Will AV inspire and invigorate the dead- head and docile non-voters here do you think?

@ 45 Elizannie

“Emm, point taken. Thus AV might be a way to engage more voters? I notice that in all this talk about changing the voting system there does not seem to be any willingness to make voting – or drawing a ballot form – compulsory? Just thought I would throw that in…..”

That’s perenially on the cards, and it’s enforced in some places (can’t be bothered to Google it… Switzerland maybe?). I for one am against it because I think in some ways voter apathy is a bonus: if someone genuinely doesn’t know or care about politics, I’d prefer not to force them to vote (naturally there would be an “abstain” box on the ballot paper, but not everyone would tick it).

From a liberal POV, I’m also not happy about the idea of forcing someone to go and vote when I can’t see a clear benefit from it.

@ 46 Mulligrubs

” Will AV inspire and invigorate the dead- head and docile non-voters here do you think?”

Maybe. Probably not. But the fact that an improvement would not create a perfect system does not mean said improvement is pointless (no idea if that’s the point you’re making, just throwing it out there).

*If you’re using that example to show that AV is inferior to PR, I agree with you, but I think we need to fight one battle at a time here.

Chaise, compulsory voting in Greece and Australia, not Switzerland that I know of.

I object to it for much the same reasons, I think it’s the duty of politiicians and parties to appeal to voters, if we force people to vote, that removes an incentive for politicians to actually compete, and possibly even removes an incentive for new parties to move into a vacuum.

There’s also a clear correlation between seat safety and turnout, and while AV isn’t going to solve that, combine it with the regular boundary reviews and it turns more seats into contested seats simply because any declaration that there’s a ‘safe seat’ is dubious. Seats right next to each other can have very different turnout levels, depending on seat safety and the, linked, level of party activity.

#9 You want to stop the BNP? Make it harder for MPs to have safe seats so they don’t have to campaign. That is the strongest argument against them, not rigging the system in your favour.’

AV will make every seat a safe seat for the middle of the road Tory, Lib Dem or New Labour candidate. It is a stich up of the electorate, a further victory for the `Don’t Knows’. As for PR, the BNP (1 million votes) would now be sitting in Parliament with 20 MPs had it been in operation in the last election. Don’t forget also that the referendum will link the introduction of AV to a huge reduction in the number of MPs making the government even less accountable to Parliament than it already is.

Post 26: “I’d say that manifesto-writing is more open and predictable, given that they’re published before the election, so you actually know what it is you’re voting for.”

Like if you vote for Labour because their manifesto shows they support AV?

There seems to be a degree of dissatisfaction with parliamentary democracy because MPs don’t necessarily do what “the people” want. We don’t vote MPs into parliament to carry out the wishes of the population at large or to tick off a list of manifesto “promises”. We vote for MPs to avail themselves of the facts, issues and consequences of particular issues and make their judgements accordingly. We vote for MPs to make decisions on our behalf and not to simply enact the directions of the majority. That is the difference between a parliamentary democracy and mob rule.

Anything which means more people’s votes count for something, as AV will, has to be supported. At the moment the only people who really have any say in electing our government are the “floating voters” in a few key marginal seats. If you live in a safe seat or have a strong party allegiance you may as well not bother turning out. AV isn’t the best answer but it is a start on the road to a fairer voting system.

51/David Ellis: Don’t forget also that the referendum will link the introduction of AV to a huge reduction in the number of MPs

I think it’s rather misleading to claim that they’re linked. It’s technically true, but only relevant to members of the House of Lords.

Assuming that the Lords pass the Bill largely as-is, then the referendum choices will be:
– 600 MPs elected by FPTP
– 600 MPs elected by AV.

The option to have 650 MPs elected by FPTP will not be available to voters. So while the two things – the referendum, and the 8% reduction in MPs – are in the same Bill in Parliament, the referendum will only be on the choice of voting system, not on the Bill as a whole.

(Indeed, depending on how the Lords amend the Bill, and how long they take to pass the whole thing, it’s possible that the redrawing of constituencies will be underway by the time the referendum takes place)

AV will make every seat a safe seat for the middle of the road Tory, Lib Dem or New Labour candidate.

Assuming you mean English seats, since I don’t see why PC or the SNP would suffer particularly under AV, how does this differ from FPTP? We currently have (excluding the Speaker) one English MP not from those three parties, and she would almost certainly have won her seat under AV too. (and Richard Taylor might have kept his independent seat under AV).

2- or 3- party competition for a seat is still an improvement on 1-party competition.

I don’t expect many more 4th-party candidates to be elected under AV, but it will make things a little easier for them, especially in the longer-term.

@ 32:

“What’s the point of reading manifestos if after the election they can renege on their promises?”

With all due respect, if you don’t bother to find out what the parties’ policies are, how do you decide who to vote for? Just because parties can renege on their promises doesn’t make manifestoes worthless, and you can compare the parties’ manifesto pledges with their actual actions whilst in government when deciding whether or not to vote for them again (“The Labour Party said they’d reduce tuition fees, they didn’t even though they had the opportunity, therefore I won’t vote for them again”). What would make manifestoes — not worthless, but certainly less useful — would be a political system which leads to frequent coalition governments, as there is then no way of telling which policies will be adopted or dumped in the coalition agreement, so voters cannot possibly have more than a very rough idea of what they’re voting for.

Having looked into AV and its multitude of variants, I’m not surprised it’s raised enormous debate. Therefore I decided to test a simple theory I read recently.

In short, very few people appear to understand the present system let alone any version of AV ie. three of my middle aged and reasonably well educated friends think we vote for individual candidates now as opposed to a party policy through manifestos !

I’m sure AV has its advantages but I think it’s just too complicated for many ? On the other hand, are my friends getting a bit doddery ? Could it even be me ? (hell no, I’m practically perfect ! )

55
Your friends are correct about voting for individual candidates, we have a representative democracy so we vote for individuals to represent us in parliament.

Can someone explain what improvement to our political system a reformed electoral system will bring about (irrespective of any nominal improvement) if it is introduced before the proposed constitutional reforms (ie to the House of Lords), which will be designed to compensate for any loss of central control?

Thomas, I don’t understand your question. As in, I’m not sure what you want to know. House of Lords reform is planned for implementation at the end of this PArliament, so it will come into affect at the same time as AV.

Thing is – The public didn’t exactly give Labour a mandate did it?

29% of the vote and kicked out of office.

So the only party that proposed a vote on AV (only a vote, not a commitment that every Labour MP would support it) got roundly beaten.

The two parties that opposed AV (either by wanting something else) won the election and are in government.

So why is Labour holding itself to an un-mandated and not-comprehensive support for AV – Maybe just because it fits with Ed’s electoral triangulation?

Not a bad reason in its own right, but that surely goes for those who oppose it too.

@ Margin4Error

“The two parties that opposed AV (either by wanting something else) won the election and are in government. ”

Yeesh! The Lib Dems obviously favoured AV over FPTP, which is the context in which we (i.e. the country) are having this conversation! You can’t twist the wished of people who voted for the Lib Dems because they wanted PR by labelling them anti-AV.

60/Chaise: Indeed, the disingenuousity is easier in the other direction: the Lib Dem manifesto had a pledge to introduce STV, but made no direct mention of introducing multi-member seats as part of this. Applying STV rules (any sensible version) to a single-member seat is exactly equivalent to using AV, which is what’s now on offer. This is “exactly” what they were asking for.